Preview:

STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS


KEVIN GILBERT, RODNEY L. KERBER, RODNEY D. KERBER, FARM BUREAU MUTUAL INSURANCE, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v SECOND INJURY FUND, Defendant-Appellee.

FOR PUBLICATION January 16, 2001 9:05 a.m.

No. 206733 WCAC LC No. 95-000323 ON REMAND Updated Copy March 16, 2001

Before: Markey, P.J., and McDonald and Fitzgerald, JJ. PER CURIAM. Our previous opinion in this case, Gilbert v Second Injury Fund, 237 Mich App 101; 603 NW2d 104 (1999), was vacated by our Supreme Court. 463 Mich 866 (2000). The order vacating our prior decision remanded the matter to this Court for reconsideration in light of language pertaining to judicial construction of statutes in Sun Valley Foods Co v Ward, 460 Mich 230; 596 NW2d 119 (1999), and Tyler v Livonia Public Schools, 459 Mich 382; 590 NW2d 560 (1999). The remand order directed this Court to follow the principles articulated in Sun Valley and Tyler and to take note of a discussion in People v McIntire, 461 Mich 147, 156, n 3; 599 NW2d 102 (1999), regarding the "problems inherent in the so-called 'absurd result' rule of statutory construction." 463 Mich 867. The order of remand pointed out that in our prior decision we declined to apply MCL 418.372(2); MSA 17.237(372)(2) without noting any ambiguity in the statutory language, and our Supreme Court reminded us that we may engage in

-1-

judicial construction of a statute only if we first determine that the statutory language is ambiguous. In our prior decision we concluded that the results reached in this case by applying MCL 418.372(2); MSA 17.237(372)(2) were absurd because applying the statute did not lead to a result apportioning liability between the employer and the Second Injury Fund, contrary to our perception that our Legislature intended such an apportionment under

Download KEVIN GILBERT V SECOND INJURY FUND.pdf

Michigan Law